Santa Usuga v. INS ( 1995 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT





                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1058

                               NABOR JESUS SANTA USUGA,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                                     Respondent.


                                 ____________________

                          ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER

                         OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________

                                 ____________________

            Frank M. Hunger, Assistant  Attorney General, Alexander H. Shapiro
_______________                               ____________________
        and Robert Kendall, Jr., Attorneys, Office of Immigration  Litigation,
___________________
        Department of  Justice, Civil Division, on  Respondent's Opposition to
        Stay of Deportation.


                                 ____________________

                                    April 13, 1995
                                 ____________________


























                 Per Curiam.   We vacate  this court's  January 17,  1995
__________

            stay  of  deportation and  summarily  deny  the petition  for

            judicial  review because  petitioner is  not entitled  to any

            relief in this court.  Loc. R. 27.1.

                 The  record  before  the   Board  fully  supported   the

            deportation  order and  denial  of  relief from  deportation.

            While petitioner now  claims that  he was not  warned of  the

            immigration  consequences of admitting  sufficient facts, and

            he argues that those  convictions are therefore invalid under

            Mass.  G. L. ch. 278,   29D, see Commonwealth v. Mahadeo, 397
___ _______________________

            Mass. 314 (1986), petitioner  may not collaterally attack his

            criminal   convictions   in   the  context   of   deportation

            proceedings.  Gouveia v. INS, 980 F.2d 814 (1st Cir. 1992).
______________

                 Petitioner's contention  that he has not  been convicted

            of  a  "trafficking" offense  or  an  "aggravated felony"  is

            incorrect  and  ignores  the  definitions of  those  terms.  

            United States v.  Rodriguez, 26  F.3d 4, 6  (1st Cir.  1994);
___________________________

            United States  v. Forbes,  16 F.3d  1294,  1300-01 (1st  Cir.
________________________

            1994); Amaral v. INS, 977 F.2d 33, 35-36 (1st Cir. 1992).
_____________

                 Nor  has petitioner shown  eligibility for discretionary

            relief.  Michelson v. INS, 897 F.2d 465, 469 (10th Cir. 1990)
________________

            (alien, who entered  as a visitor,  but remained longer  than

            permitted,  was   not   "lawfully  admitted   for   permanent

            residence"  and  therefore  was  not eligible  for     212(c)

            relief).



                                         -2-















                 The petition for judicial review is summarily denied.



















































                                         -3-